Home > Credit Cards > Did Swipe-Fee Reform Help Consumers?

Comments 2 Comments

When the Durbin Amendment took effect in October, capping the swipe fees that banks can charge retailers on debit card transactions, consumers predictably got caught in the cross-fire. Crying poverty over the loss of revenue, the large banks affected by the reform started phasing out their free checking offerings; one bank, Bank of America, even proposed a $5 monthly debit card fee before it was shut down in the face of consumer anger.

Nearly a year later, bickering between the banking and retail lobbies continues as both sides try to sway public opinion.

The latest salvo was fired by the Merchant Payments Coalition, a group of merchants dedicated to lobbying against credit card fees. Examining data from moneyrates.com and bankrate.com, the group noted that trends in swipe fees and checking account fees over the last several years cast doubt on the idea that the Durbin Amendment was responsible for killing free checking.

“Swipe fees have tripled over the last decade, but that certainly hasn’t resulted in consumer checking fees getting cut by a similar amount,” points out Tom Wenning of the National Grocers Association.

In other words, if checking account fees were really related to how much revenue the banks were getting from swipe fees, then you might expect the banks to lower their fees during times when they were bringing in more swipe fee revenue. But the data analyzed by the group shows the opposite: Even as banks made more and more money on swipe fees, average checking account fees stayed steady or rose.

The banking industry disputes that analysis, of course, arguing that the data in question only considers those checking accounts that have fees. A better analysis would be to look at how the availability of free checking changed before and after swipe-fee reform.

“They’re not taking into account the free checking accounts,” says Nessa Feddis, a spokesperson for the American Bankers Association, noting what big-bank customers already know: That totally free checking accounts have been harder to come by in the last couple of years.

But the retailers counter that a lot happened to the banking industry over the last few years, not all of which can be pinned on lower swipe fees.

“Free checking was declining before the Durbin Amendment,” says Doug Kantor, counsel for the MPC. “In 2008 we had a fiscal crisis, and free checking went down because of that, not because years later they capped interchange fees.” He adds that free checking options have actually started to rise in the wake of swipe-fee reform, as smaller banks (which are exempted from the Durbin Amendment) increase their free checking offerings to lure customers away from the big banks.

Interestingly, that’s a contention at least partially supported by the ABA’s numbers. As of a 2010 survey conducted by the organization, 53% of respondents reported that they paid nothing for their checking account. But in summer 2011, right before Durbin was set to take effect, that number jumped to 71%, before settling to 59% in the most recent survey conducted last month. Those numbers suggest that, contrary to what you might expect, access to free checking has actually increased as swipe-fee reform has taken affect.

Still, the banking lobby maintains that reform has made it harder to get access to free checking. Feddis notes that some confounding variables may be at work in those numbers, including the possibility that consumers have been better able to maintain minimum balances as the economy has recovered over the last couple of years. And while she concedes that aggressive competition from smaller banks has made it possible for consumers to still find free checking options, she suggests that this might not be the case for much longer.

“For the moment the interchange fee is higher for the small institutions, but that’s not going to be maintained,” she says. “Competitive pressures are going to push those [fees] down.” The smaller banks may not be required to cap their debit card fees, but if they want to compete with the big banks, they may have to come down a bit. And when that happens, they’re also going to have trouble maintaining free checking options.

So whether the Durbin Amendment helped or hurt consumers depends a lot on whom you ask, and it’s clear that not all consumers have been impacted equally. Customers of big banks undoubtedly saw their free checking options dwindle, while those at credit unions and small banks (and those willing to switch to those smaller institutions) were able to escape largely unharmed, at least for now.

And whether the lower fees have resulted in lower costs at the cash register is also unclear. The MPC notes that debit card usage is heaviest at supermarkets, drugstores and convenience stores; such merchants, says the MPC, tend to have lower margins to begin with and “operate in an environment where it is difficult to pass along price increases to the consumer.” Still, the organization points to a report from Moody’s that suggests that the swipe-fee cap has at least allowed retailers to keep prices steady as other costs rise.

Whatever the ultimate impact of swipe-fee reform turns out to be for consumers, one thing seems clear: The banking and retail industries probably aren’t going to stop bickering about it any time soon.

Image: BeauGiles, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team